Interesting Stories In Canadian Politics # 3

Story #1: Headline in the Yahoo News/Canada Politics, posted by Andy Radia on, November 29, 2013 at 3:12 PM reads, “Harper government tracks ‘missing’ $3.1 billion” and goes on to say, “Conservative MPs finally has a good news story to take home to their constituencies this weekend. You’ll recall, in May, the Tory brand took a hit when the Auditor General slammed the government for losing track of $3.1 billion earmarked for national security. The media and the opposition parties somehow turned ‘losing track of $3.1 billion”, into ‘losing $3.1 billion.’ Nevertheless, that money has now been tracked. According to the National Post, the problem was due to mis-categorizations between departments.

Well there you have it Canadians have nothing to worry about now (smile) according to the press; our government did not steal the money they are just incapable of keeping track of it and since they eventually found it, no real harm done. The story does not stop there though it goes on to imply that there is a vast difference between the Harper Government standing up in the house of commons and saying that we somehow lost track of the money and the opposition parties saying that they lost the Harper government lost the money. In other words this government did not bother to do the paper work which caused them to look like they could not find$3.1 billion dollars. The story fascinates me, because it seems to be saying that we as Canadians should be happy and see it as good news that we have a government that has been proven to not be a crooked in this instance, but has rather been proven to just be careless and incompetent when it dealing with large sums of money and doing the appropriate paper work when transferring large sums of money from one department to another. This story also makes the claim that this government should somehow feel good about telling its supporters that they are incompetent, sloppy, careless, but they are not crooks.

Story #2: Headline in CBC News, posted by Blair Rhodes on Nov 07, 2013 at 7:50 AM, reads “Condom piercer’s sex crime appeal goes to Supreme Court”with the slightly less bold sub title reading, “Craig Jaret Hutchinson convicted in December 2011 and sentenced to 18 months in prison” I guess I found the whole debate fascinating, because of the implications of the defense of this guys decision and what the impact the final outcome will have on a woman’s ability to rely on an agreement between herself and her mate to only engage in safe sex. How will this impact the ability of a woman to protect themselves from unwanted pregnancies to poke holes in a condom and what happens to the unborn child of this deception?

The other thing that fascinates me is the assertion by the defense that this guy did nothing illegal and although what he did could be considered reprehensible that it was no way assault, because he had permission for the act. We are to ignore that he only had permission to engage in sex with her providing it was safe sex, (with a condom on). No condom equals, no permission; no permission means to engage is sexual assault. You engage in sexual assault you will be punished. We are being asked to forget that because this guy poked holes in the condom and impregnated hos girlfriend who said she did not wish to be pregnant that he caused the death of an unborn child. We are being asked by the defense that because of his actions the young woman was put through stress, hardship, physical and mental anguish. What if he had a sexual transmittable disease that he was not aware of and because of his action he gave it to her? Should she have had to carry the baby and given it to the guy? I find it incredible that this idiot did not just do his time and be glad he was not charged with the murder of that unborn child.

Story #2: Headline in Canada.com, published by Jordon Press on December 6, 2013, 4:26 pm reads: “Conservative Sen. Jean-Guy Dagenais accused of unleashing ‘personal attack’ on NDP MP Charmaine Borg” What I found so interesting in this story is the reasoning of Conservative Senator Jean Guy Dagenais in writing this letter to NDP MP Charmaine Borg. Everyone in Canada, and around the world knows that this Senate is embroiled in scandal when it comes to the misuse of travel expenses and household allowance expenses. The fact that the Conservatives have a majority in the Senate and that they also seem to be in the majority of the scandals in both chambers and even in the PMO’s office does nothing to improve how Canadians feel about this non elected body of government. This government is an embarrassment to Canadians and the flyer was an attempt to rid Canadians of an ineffective, embarrassing body of the government that has gotten worse since Steven Harper added his patronage appointments to the senate, so again I ask why the personal attack on NDP MNA Charmaine Borg for stating the obvious.

Story #3: Headline in CBC.ca, reads: Jason Kenney‘s Rob Ford comment sparked profane rebuke from Jim Flaherty. That they argued is one thing, but to do it right out there on the floor of the house of Commons is not what the conservative government of Canada and Steven Harper need at this point in time. That it is happening because of Rob Ford I find amazing. that 2 senior members of the conservative party of Canada and high-ranking cabinet ministers would use profanity and almost come to blows I find almost Liberal and anything but conservative. It appears that the prime minister is losing control his party as continuous scandals and inner conflict seem to be tearing his party apart from within. The Conservative Party of Canada is going to great lengths to paint the Liberal Party of Canada as protecting the conservative senators who have broken the law and at the same time their finance minister almost gets in a fist fight with Jason Kenney over Jason Kenney calling for Rob Fords to step down; talk about contradictions. I am guessing that Jim Flaherty wants Rob Ford covered under the same, “It wasn’t me ” Tori operating procedure as the prime minister and the rest of the prominent Tories are. At best they looked like a bunch of children and their use of profane language showed a complete lack of respect for where they were (the House of Commons) and their colleagues, of whom a large number were women. This party can ill afford this type of public display especially over a self-confessed liar and crack smoker. What were they thinking?